What Do Doctors Prescribe on Health Care?

Obama's plan is Government run health care, and he is willing to Bait and Switch or do anything to achieve this agenda. I hope the Doctor's did not fall for this LIAR'S TELEPROMPTER SCRIPTED BS!!

I watched a video today of Obama speaking before an audience in 2002 stating his desire for a single payer plan. No wonder he got boo'd today!

'good money'...I don't know if you realize how many doctors are having trouble paying for their medical school loans.

An ex-Scottish Highlander took over one of our local hospital computer systems starting four years ago. I didn't think anything of it...maybe I should have/

Ryan C- 'shill'...isn't that a Brittish term?...

Nathan.. your answer might be best handled by the sales rep. at the Mercedes dealership.

1/5 of all the money in the United States is spent on healthcare, so I don't understand why they have the nerve to oppose reform when even if we only spent 1/10 on healthcare they would still be making good money.

The Doctors would like the POTUS to make a similar visit to the Trial Lawyers' Association.

The poor doctors got whiplash during Obama's speech. He implied he might consider tort reform and then he said that was not part of the plan.

At first the good doctors applauded him and then silence when he pulled tort reform off the table. It was a wicked bait and switch. It PO'd quite a few in the audience. Hope and then change...

"On Sunday, George Will during the panel discussion on ABC's "This Week," said:"

George Will is quoting Betsy McCaughey who is a paid shill for the health insurance companies.

She had an article during the election is which she made up various parts of Obama's health plan.

Like any right wing shill, her facts should be checked before any posting.

Another thing I would like to ask is - has anyone checked out who all of the uninsured people are and why Obama wants to put everyone under Obama Care? Medicare doesn't work, why should an expanded version work any better?

See this interesting tidbit:

On Sunday, George Will during the panel discussion on ABC's "This Week," said:

WILL: Donna [Brazile], you talk about the 46, 47 million uninsured. Fourteen million of them are already eligible for other government programs and haven’t signed up. Ten million are in households with household incomes of $75,000 a year and could afford it if they wanted to.

Furthermore, an enormous number in that 47 million are not American citizens. Sixty percent of the uninsured in San Francisco are not citizens.

The MA health care plan was destroyed by Deval Patrick's insistence on rewarding his buddies with such things as mandatory podiatry coverage.

Of course President Obama would never ever reward his buddies ...

Typical Obama:

He will curb malpractice cost by not capping fees and instructing doctors to not practice defensive medicine.

That is as brilliant as fixing the deficit by spending a trillion bucks.

The man is becoming a laughing stock.

Obama specifically said in his speech today that he was not proposing a cap on awards.

Anyone compared Obama's proposed plans to how well Massachusett's Health Care is working?

When Massachusetts passed its pioneering health care reforms in 2006, critics warned that they would result in a slow but steady spiral downward toward a government-run health care system. Three years later, those predictions appear to be coming true:

Although the state has reduced the number of residents without health insurance, 200,000 people remain uninsured. Moreover, the increase in the number of insured is primarily due to the state's generous subsidies, not the celebrated individual mandate.

Health care costs continue to rise much faster than the national average. Since 2006, total state health care spending has increased by 28 percent. Insurance premiums have increased by 8–10 percent per year, nearly double the national average.

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It (2007).

More by Michael D. Tanner
New regulations and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to health care costs.
Program costs have skyrocketed.

Despite tax increases, the program faces huge deficits. The state is considering caps on insurance premiums, cuts in reimbursements to providers, and even the possibility of a "global budget" on health care spending—with its attendant rationing.

A shortage of providers, combined with increased demand, is increasing waiting times to see a physicia

Perhaps this is of interest?

In Wisconsin, Barack Obama supposedly fields "spontaneous" health-care questions from . . . a former Democratic Party candidate for Congress:

This questioner can be seen in a CNN video covering the Green Bay event. The woman is identified as "Paulette Guerin" and labeled as an "attendee" of the meeting on the CNN segment. In fact CNN got the spelling of the woman's last name wrong, it's not Guerin, but Garin. . . .

Garin was a recent Democrat candidate for Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District. Not only that but Garin is a proponent of a single-payer plan, as Obama was when he was a Senator from Illinois. In fact, Garin says right on her webpage that Obama is a proponent of the single payer plan and she urges fellow Wisconsinites to flood Congress with calls to implement the single payer system . .

Nice point, Gary. If it was illegal for employers to provide health insurance, prices would adjust to the resources individuals have available, instead of to the leveraging ability of trans-national shadow banking systems.

I would be surprised if there is not a financial crisis in the healthcare industry similar to the banking crisis, built on leveraged accounts for which no cash-flows will follow. Purchasing these accounts from Insurance companies is one way to subsidize the industry, which should be done a competetive, reverse auction kind of process or credit term facility. If the crisis is too great, then I'm afraid we all have to brace for another bail-out before systematic limits could take effect, if they are imposed.

1. Get it out of the employment domain.
2. Tax Credit.
3. Free market.

To limit the resources used on healthcare is to limit the doctors, the nurses, the technicians, the builders, the researchers, the accountants, the policy supervisors, the government overseers, the patients, in general, to limit the time spent trying to take care of people and their ills.

If this is a good idea, then there is only one place a limit can be placed by the government. It must be placed at the insurance premium. This limit cannot be subsidized at the premium side, but at the service side, because individuals must be able to offer an out-of-pocket payment that can compete with the premium. It can be limited at the premium side, though, based on what people can afford. The industry then must work within these limits at all the various levels to make the best use of the resources, just as they do now, only now there are no limits.

The only possible solution or helpful government role that I can see is to limit the premiums that insurance companies can charge for whatever groups, like an inverse graduated income tax. The competition against that would be out-of pocket payment for services. There is no other limit that the government can place. The reasons are 1)Healthcare is too complicated to manage centrally with any effectiveness whatsoever 2)The government cannot force a tax to pay for healthcare without mass exodus from citizenship, besides the inefficiencies of central management, especially in healthcare 3)The government cannot limit what people pay for services out-of-pocket without unleashing an underground economy for shoddy medical services, apart from the impossibilty of telling Americans that we can't buy our own health out-of-pocket, if we want to.